Court refuses to junk cyber libel charge vs. Maria Ressa

A Manila court has refused to dismiss the government's cyber libel charge against Rappler CEO Maria Ressa and a former reporter.

The arraignment of Ressa and ex-researcher Reynaldo Santos Jr. was ordered to proceed Tuesday after the Manila Regional Trial Court Branch 46 denied their motion to quash the case, which they argued alleged facts that did not constitute an offense.

Ressa and Santos are accused of committing cyber libel in connection with a story Rappler published in 2012 that cited an intelligence report linking a businessman to criminal activities such as human trafficking and drug smuggling.

In an April 12 order, Judge Rainelda Estacio-Montesa held that the Department of Justice was able to "sufficiently establish" the elements of cyber libel in its accusation, ruling against Rappler's contention.

Rappler had claimed that the prosecution wrongly applied the multiple republication rule in the case, saying the 2014 update of the article in question -- the subject of the criminal charge -- merely corrected a typographical error.

On this, the court said: "The allegations of the Defense as to multiple republication rule are matters extrinsic in the Information, thus, improper to raise in the Motion to Quash based on this ground."

The journalists had also argued they cannot be prosecuted under the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 because the law was placed under a temporary restraining order (TRO) at the time of the allegedly libelous publication.

But the court said the Supreme Court-issed TRO merely suspended the implementation, and not the effectivity, of the law.

"So while crimes committed during the said period cannot be prosecuted during the effectivity of the TRO, they may be prosecuted after the lifting of the same just like what is done in this case," the ruling stated.

As to Rappler's argument that the alleged crime had prescribed by the time the businessman, Wilfredo Keng, sought to prosecute them, the court decided that the prescriptive period is 12 years, in accordance with the Act No. 3326.

Rappler had claimed the prescriptive period was one year, but the court held that since the anti-cybercrime law does not specifically provide a penalty for cyber libel, the one provided under Act No. 3326 must apply.

Finally, the court decided that Rappler Inc.'s corporate liability may be proven in evidence during trial. — RSJ, GMA News